Firaz Mohamed

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and fell within the MIG, and that there was insufficient evidence of functionally disabling chronic pain or psychological impairment to warrant removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits had been exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the claims for interest and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for physiotherapy beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant argued that chronic neck pain and pre-existing degenerative disc disease warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a diagnosis of chronic pain causing functional impairment or to show that pre-existing conditions prevented maximal medical recovery within the MIG.

The application for the physiotherapy treatment plan, interest, and a bad faith award was dismissed.

The applicants sought to appoint Shilan Hasan as guardian of the person and property for Munir Nuri Saed under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, via a summary disposition procedure.

The court declined the application due to significant non-compliance with statutory requirements, including failure to properly serve the allegedly incapable person and relevant family members, an incorrect style of cause, and the absence of mandatory Management Plans, Guardianship Plans, and assessor statements.

The court emphasized the necessity of strict adherence to the rigorous application process outlined in the SDA, which provides crucial protections for allegedly incapable individuals.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing proposed amendments to their claim.

The proposed amendments sought to add allegations of conspiracy and negligence, and to add a numbered company as a plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal found no reviewable error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal with costs.